Has anyone (including Roger Pielke Jr.) studied how these damage functions work or is it merely assumed they are inherently valid?
I understand they are something invented by economists. I take an economics course. One lecture pointed out the utter ridiculousness of the reasoning underlying the "theory" of these damage functions, never mind the numbers that poot forth from them.
Hopper's critique is damning, but unless I am mistaken, it does not take on the implausibility of these damage functions.
This is a profound scandal. The timeline and nature of the data and statistical anomalies strongly suggest that KLW24 was a knowingly phony analysis designed to drive financial policy decisions of the highest order on false pretenses. Just think about the potential consequences: central banks throughout the world planned to incorporate this fraudulent damage model into their stress tests for banks under their respective jurisdictions, which could result in credit scarcity and even drive regional banks into insolvency, with dire consequences to both commercial and consumer credit. The timeline also suggests that Springer Nature was complicit (and remains complicit) in this far-reaching fraud. The US government directly and indirectly (through APCs) pays Springer Nature literally tens of millions of dollars per year. We should demand a full investigation into this scandal with full accountability meted out to the individuals at Springer Nature who abetted this fraud, before US taxpayers pay another single dollar to Springer Nature.
I wish I could believe that all this garbage happened by mistake . I don’t believe that at all. I believe they got caught by informed readers who properly called “bullshit!” and are now engaged in a huge CYA. Thanks much for helping to keep the science honest!
This doesn't sound like an isolated incident to me. It fits a pattern of science being twisted to support political narratives and to keep the funding stream going.
In CFD some researchers have a reputation for only publishing good looking results that are almost certainly the result of selection bias. It has resulted in a backlash though because many laymen have come to believe that the problem is solved and funding should be cut back. A similar thing is happening in climate science but for a different reason. The populist movement is highly suspicious of science that requires big sacrifices from ordinary working people. Common people also can see that so far there have been almost no negative consequences of climate change and some benefits. Trump's administration is defunding climate science in NASA which is a good start. There are also a few excellent scientists who want reforms across the entire science establishment. One can reflect that activist scientists hubris in insulting MAGA and Trump's team may seem in retrospect to have been a very bad idea. But perhaps the goal was never to advance science but to virtue signal to your fellow activists that you were a leader in activism.
To state the obvious: this doesn’t look like a series of honest mistakes. It looks more like somebody commissioned a “scientific” paper to provide justification for policy decisions, knowing it can rely on both authors (who would never retract, but only twist results even when proven wrong) and a formerly scientific paper - Nature - who would manipulate publication of the paper and its critiques in order to allow the policy decisions. Hopefully, in some future this and many similar instances will be investigated as what they are - a blatant attempt to take biased political decisions under the cover of “science”. I feel encouraged to see that a significant number of real scientists have dared to say “no” to this.
“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.” — Benjamin Franklin. Nature (and, for that matter, the Lancet) should beware. Without their reputation they are nothing.
One has to wonder how this works. If you have several reports saying one thing and one saying something very different, why do you immediately publish that single or base your entire analysis on this? There seems to be natural inclination with some people to think that challenges are worse than we think and any possible proof for this is immediately believed.
The role of science publishers is remarkable as well.
Based on what I've seen from UN working groups, the EU policy makers, and multinational organizations like the NGFS, it looks like the conclusion is pending catastrophic damage in every conceivable dimension - health, economics, natural environment, equity, geopolitics, whatever. This conclusion was reached many years ago, probably around 1995, and the only potentially appropriate action is immediate and deep decarbonization of the world's economy. Scientific papers are only relevant in so far as they can be used to justify the action.
Has anyone (including Roger Pielke Jr.) studied how these damage functions work or is it merely assumed they are inherently valid?
I understand they are something invented by economists. I take an economics course. One lecture pointed out the utter ridiculousness of the reasoning underlying the "theory" of these damage functions, never mind the numbers that poot forth from them.
Hopper's critique is damning, but unless I am mistaken, it does not take on the implausibility of these damage functions.
And scientists wonder why "trust in science" is at such a low point.
Also, as if this could not be any more obvious.
What happened in early November right before this bankster group rushed this academic fraud into their model.
I can’t recall a single thing that happened.
Maybe they also caught some gold bars just falling off the titanic.
So many mysteries.
You peeps are always so nice.
“With no academic consensus on climate damage functions, it is unclear why the NGFS would adopt the results of a single academic paper”.
Because the narrative needs it and so decision/based evidence making takes the lead.
It’s why the paper was selected.
It’s why it’s not retracted.
It’s why the banksters are still using it.
Because they need it.
I’ll alert Trump there is another group needing sanction and possible charges, like Canadian PM Mark Blarney’s GFANZ bankster mafia.
Quite being so nice, gets you nowhere.
These people play for keeps.
This is a profound scandal. The timeline and nature of the data and statistical anomalies strongly suggest that KLW24 was a knowingly phony analysis designed to drive financial policy decisions of the highest order on false pretenses. Just think about the potential consequences: central banks throughout the world planned to incorporate this fraudulent damage model into their stress tests for banks under their respective jurisdictions, which could result in credit scarcity and even drive regional banks into insolvency, with dire consequences to both commercial and consumer credit. The timeline also suggests that Springer Nature was complicit (and remains complicit) in this far-reaching fraud. The US government directly and indirectly (through APCs) pays Springer Nature literally tens of millions of dollars per year. We should demand a full investigation into this scandal with full accountability meted out to the individuals at Springer Nature who abetted this fraud, before US taxpayers pay another single dollar to Springer Nature.
I wish I could believe that all this garbage happened by mistake . I don’t believe that at all. I believe they got caught by informed readers who properly called “bullshit!” and are now engaged in a huge CYA. Thanks much for helping to keep the science honest!
This doesn't sound like an isolated incident to me. It fits a pattern of science being twisted to support political narratives and to keep the funding stream going.
In CFD some researchers have a reputation for only publishing good looking results that are almost certainly the result of selection bias. It has resulted in a backlash though because many laymen have come to believe that the problem is solved and funding should be cut back. A similar thing is happening in climate science but for a different reason. The populist movement is highly suspicious of science that requires big sacrifices from ordinary working people. Common people also can see that so far there have been almost no negative consequences of climate change and some benefits. Trump's administration is defunding climate science in NASA which is a good start. There are also a few excellent scientists who want reforms across the entire science establishment. One can reflect that activist scientists hubris in insulting MAGA and Trump's team may seem in retrospect to have been a very bad idea. But perhaps the goal was never to advance science but to virtue signal to your fellow activists that you were a leader in activism.
Whatever happened to basic honesty and integrity? Sometimes it is enough to make me despair at the state of "science".
Sometimes?
To state the obvious: this doesn’t look like a series of honest mistakes. It looks more like somebody commissioned a “scientific” paper to provide justification for policy decisions, knowing it can rely on both authors (who would never retract, but only twist results even when proven wrong) and a formerly scientific paper - Nature - who would manipulate publication of the paper and its critiques in order to allow the policy decisions. Hopefully, in some future this and many similar instances will be investigated as what they are - a blatant attempt to take biased political decisions under the cover of “science”. I feel encouraged to see that a significant number of real scientists have dared to say “no” to this.
How odd that a paper supposedly dealing with economic damage was not published in a econ journal where it woud a have been peer reviewed?
Of course for mitigation policy the findings are irrelevant as what is needed for mitigation are estimates wit alternative polices going forward
“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.” — Benjamin Franklin. Nature (and, for that matter, the Lancet) should beware. Without their reputation they are nothing.
Too late
One has to wonder how this works. If you have several reports saying one thing and one saying something very different, why do you immediately publish that single or base your entire analysis on this? There seems to be natural inclination with some people to think that challenges are worse than we think and any possible proof for this is immediately believed.
The role of science publishers is remarkable as well.
Ever thought some of your colleagues are crooks?
Based on what I've seen from UN working groups, the EU policy makers, and multinational organizations like the NGFS, it looks like the conclusion is pending catastrophic damage in every conceivable dimension - health, economics, natural environment, equity, geopolitics, whatever. This conclusion was reached many years ago, probably around 1995, and the only potentially appropriate action is immediate and deep decarbonization of the world's economy. Scientific papers are only relevant in so far as they can be used to justify the action.
I may be overly cynical, but I don't think so.
You aren’t even close to being cynical enough.
Those damn Uzbecks. Fouling up climate science every 100 years.
-“correcting inaccurate data from Uzbekistan in KLW24 reduces their estimate of projected 2100 damages due to climate change by about two thirds”
Keep up the good work Rodger, a voice of reason in the wilderness.